From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:55:52 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Have a flag to stop the option parsing at the first argument.
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712171253290.9446@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <26962818-F702-44D2-BD26-95D74CE21F0D@wincent.com>

Hi,

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:

> El 17/12/2007, a las 13:26, Johannes Schindelin escribi?:
> 
> > I think it is wrong to go out of our way to support "git status -p" as 
> > a synonym to "git -p status".  I simply do not believe that newcomers 
> > are not intelligent enough to understand that "git -p <subcommand>" 
> > means that the output goes into their pager.
> 
> But the point is, of all the special options, -p is the *only* that 
> can't unambiguously go after the subcommand.

It should not be put after the subcommand.  That's my point.  Exactly 
because it is -- even conceptually -- no subcommand option.

CVS has many shortcomings, but one lesson here is that people had no 
problems with "cvs -z3 update -d -P".  See, the "-z3" is an option that 
has nothing to do with the subcommand.

Exactly the same situation here.  I never had any problems explaining why 
"-p" goes before the subcommand here.  Never.

Ciao,
Dscho